NY2: Trial court didn’t deny due process by deciding suppression motion on a ground not argued by state, except for being just wrong on the law

The trial court did not deny due process by deciding the suppression issue on an alternative ground not advanced by the state below. The problem is, however, that the record does not support the result below, and it is reversed. People v. Marcial, 2022 NY Slip Op 06142, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5998 (2d Dept. Nov. 2, 2022).

Defendant doesn’t show any prejudice that he wouldn’t have pled guilty but for the alleged bad advice to plead guilty. Ruiz-Gayton v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197349 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 16, 2022).*

“Vasquez fails to identify a Fourth Amendment violation in this encounter. Once the initial stop ended and Rohr returned all of the paperwork to Vasquez, Vasquez consented to additional questioning. But even if the stop had not become consensual, by the time Rohr handed him the ticket, Rohr had reasonable suspicion to believe he was trafficking drugs and that alone warranted additional investigation. In either case, Vasquez voluntarily consented to the subsequent search of his car.” United States v. Vasquez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197664 (D. Kan. Oct. 28, 2022).*

“[I]nasmuch as the license plate was clearly legible, the Plastic Cover complied with the statute. [¶] Nevertheless, the Court holds Singley’s mistake of law to be reasonable.” United States v. Miller, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197509 (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Due process, Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.